






r .tKxV/k"^ ^^. A^ *V 










tngtnn lEfitat?, at tI|tH ^^HBtoti 



NELSON W. EVANS, Portsmouth, O. 



Printed from the Advance Sheets of the July Quarterly, 1910, 
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society 



Why Congress Should Pass the 
Bill to Reimburse the Wash- 
ington Estate, at this 
Session. 



Nelson W^ Evans 

PORTSMOUTH, OHIO. 



Printed from the Advance Sheets of the July 
Quarterly, 1910, Ohio State Archaeol- 
ogical and Historical Society. 



COLUMBUS, OHIO: 
Press of The Fred. J. Heer Co. 



Jl 









WHY CONGRESS SHOULD PASS THE BILL TO REIM- 
BURSE THE WASHINGTON ESTATE, 
AT THIS SESSION. 



This bill calling for $305,100 was presented to the 60th 
Congress on December 5, 1907, and nothing was done with it 
at that Congress, at the long session. It was put over to the 
short session on the plea that the appropriations must be kept 
down before the Presidential election. 

At the short session of the 60th Congress, the sub-com- 
mittee of the House Committee on Claims, acknowledged the 
justice of this claim by offering to satisfy it in land, but the 
full committee made no investigation or report. 

The bills were reintroduced into the House and Senate in 
the 61 St Congress and now it is suggested in the House that 
the bill should go over on account of the exigencies of the 
])arty in power, and the Congressional elections in the fall of 
this year. Tf the bill can be postponed for this reason, it can 
be postponed at every long session for the same reason. The 
heirs of General Washington claim this is a debt of the United 
States to them and say frankly if it is a debt, they are en- 
titled to immediate payment and if not a debt, they have no 
claim. This debt originated on March i, 1784. It was as- 
sumed in the first clause of x\rt. VI of the original Federal 
Constitution and reassumed in Sect. 4, of the 14th amend- 
ment and is a debt of perpetual obligation. 

The United States gratefully and thankfully received from 
General Washington the relinquishment of his pay as General, 
tendered him by the Continental Congress, to the amount of 
$48,000. It received from him in his relinquishment of his 
bounty lands from A^irginia. 23,333.33 acres of the value of 
$233,333.33. Tims the United States received gifts from General 
Washington of the value of $281,333, or 53 per centum of the 
estate of which he died seized. 



This act of patriotism on the part of General Washington 
in contributing $281,333.33 to the Treasury of his country, has 
never, in my reading, been noticed or commented upon. How 
many patriotic citizens of this repulilic have contributed amounts 
equal to 53 per centum of their private fortunes to the Public 
Treasury of their Country? Let them be named and it will 
be found that this gift is unique and stands alone. 

General V\^ashington owned two warrants which were lo- 
catable in the North-west Territory. These he had purchased 
with his own means. One was for 3,000 acres purchased of 
Capt. John Rootes and the other was for 100 acres purchased 
of Thomas Cope. These he placed in the liands of Col. John 
O'Bannon, of Richmond, Va., and had them located in Cler- 
mont and Hamilton Counties, Ohio, in three surveys of 839. 
1235 and 977 acres respectively. These surveys exhausted all 
of Rootes' warrant of 3,000 acres and 51 acres of the Cope war- 
rant. F'orty-nine acres of the Cope warrant was never used. 

These surveys, 1650, 1765 and 1775, were made in May, 
1788, and General Washington had the surveys patented to him 
from the State of Virginia, December i, 1790, and these patents 
appear of record in tlie land office at Richmond. Virginia. 

In 1798, General Washington heard that his title would be 
attacked by a second location and on July 30, he wrote to Col. 
Richard C. Anderson, at Louisville, Ky., Surveyor of the Dis- 
trict, stating his title and that he would defend it to the last. 
Had he siu'vived ten years longer he would have had title to 
these lands complete. 

Col. Anderson replied on September 5, 1798, that he re- 
garded General Washington's title good, and that no attempts 
had been made to overlocate it, but if any were, he would notify 
him. 

The attempt to seize General Washington's 3,051 acres of 
land in Clermont and Hamilton Counties, Ohio, was not made 
until February, 1806, and Col. Anderson at once notified General 
Washington's Executors, as he had promised the General he 
would do. 

It was another case of Ahab vs. Naboth, i Kings 21, in which 
Joseph Kerr, then a Deputy Surveyor and afterwards a United 



States Senator from Ohio took the part of Ahab. Kerr had 
to make some kind of claim to justify his appropriation of 
the Washington land. He claimed that they were located on 
'a Resolution warrant and therefore not good. It stood to 
reason, however, that when the State of Virginia reserved the 
right to issue the warrants to take these lands, it could do it 
under a general law, a private or special law, or a joint 
resolution. 

Washington's 3.000 acre warrant was issued under the au- 
thority of a joint resolution of the Virginia legislature. Kerr's 
leal reason for making the location was that he wanted to pur- 
chase the Neville Surveys of 839 and i.o66| acres respectively 
and which he did in 181 1. 

The Executors of General Washington at once sent to Rich- 
mond, Virginia, and obtained the surveys, warrants and grants 
and on March 14, 1806, applied to Congress to make their title 
to these lands good, as against Kerr's claims, who at that time 
had only made entries. 

The petition was treated with the greatest courtesy by the 
Ninth Congress and promptly referred but not disposed of, when 
at tlie close of the short session, two acts in response to it, were 
passed. The act of March 2, 1807, declared all second loca- 
tions thereafter made, absolutely void. This act was renewed 
eleven times and ke])t in force thereafter till the District closed. 
This act was passed as a rebuke to the conduct of Kerr in 
making his second location upon Washington's lands and to 
prevent any similar case happening thereafter. 

The act did prevent any similar second locations. The act 
of March 3, 1807, was passed with the knowledge on the part 
of Congress that Kerr had surveyed out his entries in May, 
1806, and had fully determined to take Washington's lands un- 
less prevented by the United States. That act forever silenced 
the claim that Resolution warrants issued by Virginia were not 
of equal force of those issued under the authority of General 
Laws. That act approved all resolution warrants previously 
issued by Virginia and where surveys had been made under 
them, as in this case, validated such surveys. 

The act of March 3, 1803, viewed in the light of the pre- 



vious history relating to it, makes it in effect a pledge on the 
part of the United States to the Executors of General Wash- 
ington, 

First, that it would refuse to further recognize the second 
locations made by Joseph Kerr, and would compel him to with- 
draw his warrants and relocate the same. 

Second, that if the Executors of General Washington re- 
turned their surveys to the General Land Office, on or before 
March 23, 1812, patents would issue to them on these surveys. 
This act was ecfuivalent to a Government bond issued to the 
Executors of General Washington promising to give them this 
particular land or its equivalent, because it was enacted in their 
petition and intended to comply with the same, i. e., that they 
should have the title to this particular land. 

On April 30, 1807, the United States, in direct violation 
of its pledge, contained in the act of March 3, 1807, to give 
the Executors of General Washington to March 23, 1812, to 
return their surveys and obtain patents, patented General Wash- 
ington's two surveys 1,650, for 839 acres and 1,765 for 1.235 
acres to John Neville's heirs and on January 8, 1808, patented 
Gen. Washington's remaining survey 1,775, for 977 acres, to 
Henry Massie and before the five years were up these lands 
were in the hands of innocent purchasers. 

The patentees of these lands sold and disposed of them and 
the Washington estate was wholly deprived of them. The docu- 
ments on file as to surveys 4,847, 4,448 and 4.862, which are 
the mmibers of the surveys made by Kerr, the two first made 
for John Neville's heirs and the last for Henry Massie, clearly 
indicate to the expert that the patents were procured by fraud, 
as they undoubtedly were and a fraud for which the United 
Sta,tes was solely and wholly responsible. 

The act of March 3, 1807, was a declaration of Trust on 
the part of the United States, made in response to the petition 
of the Executors of General Washington, to the effect that they 
held the title in trust for his Executors and would convey it 
to them on or before March 23, 1812, on their surveys being 
filed prior to that time. 

On Dec. 5, 1907, the personal representative of General 



Washington demanded the performance of this trust and the 
matter has not yet been acted on. 

The method of deahng with a case like this was settled in 
the 22nd Congress. The Assignees of General Duncan Mc- 
Arthur had located 14,000 acres in 1810 and 1812, in the District, 
which lands the United States sold and conveyed to other parties. 

An act was passed May 26, 1824, Vol. 4, p. 70, to satisfy 
the claims of the owners of these 14,000 acres. An investigation 
was had and reports made and the acts of May 26, 1830, Vol. 
4, p. 405, and P^eb. 12, 1831, Vol. 4, p. 440 were passed. These 
bills carried $85,565.46. The precedents expressed in these bills 
were carefully made. The subject matter was under investiga- 
tion for six years. 

The claims were attacked and contested, but on the final 
outcome, the reports in favor of the bills were without division 
and the bills were passed unanimously. The precedents of 
these bills have never been questioned, or changed. 

Under them the Washington heirs are entitled to the value 
of their lands, without improvements, as of the date they pre- 
sented their demand to Congress and with interest from that 
date till they are paid. This calls for $305,100 with interest 
from Dec. 5, 1907, till paid. The estate of General Washington 
is entitled to this relief beyond any question. There can be no 
two conclusions from the facts presented. 

The United States received in gifts from General Wash- 
ington $281,333.33. It then took his lands worth $305,100, with- 
out improvements. It has had out of his estate $586,433.33, 
."^.56,433.33 more than he left at the time of his death. 

Can any one defend the action of the United States in tak- 
ing General W^ashington's lands and using them to pay a part 
of its debts directly contrary to the last clause of the Fifth 
Amendment to the Constitution? If we place- the lands at 
$30,500 at the time of the conversion, then the United States 
has had $311,923 from General Washington's estate, so that in 
either method of compensation, the United States in satisfying 
this debt would be simply paying back what it had already re- 
ceived and held on account of the Washington estate. 

And yet it is said that the House wishes to postpone this 



8 

claim till after the Congressional election in 1910. The way to 
treat a debt is to pay it when presented and not to postpone 
it on the ground of political expediency, or any other grounds. 
The heirs are asking this payment of this claim because it is a 
debt. If it is not a debt, let Congress investigate it and demon- 
strate the fact. The heirs are willing to bear all the blame of 
presenting a false or unjust claim and if this debt should not be 
paid let Congress investigate and show wliy. The investiga- 
tion will demonstrate that the United States, contrary to its own 
laws, contrary to its solemn pledges and promises, took these 
lands from the estate of General Washington, after he or his 
heirs had held them eighteen years, and after it had agreed to 
give him the title and gave them to second locators, who had 
no equities or claims to them whatever. 

This claim is unique. Congress received from Virginia the 
fund to pay this debt. It has never paid it though it promised 
in an act of Congress to do so. It took Gen. Washington's 
lands after he and his heirs had held them eighteen years and 
gave them to others, contrary to its own pledges and promises 
and has never accounted to the Washington estate for its breach 
of trust. 

The investigation will reveal the facts herein set forth and 
none others and a Congressional Committee or Congress itself 
should be as fully able to see , the only conclusions which can 
be drawn, from the foregoing indisputable facts, as any reader 
of this Article can. 

Nelson W. Evans, 

Portsmouth, Ohio. 

March 15, 1910. 



/^)^/y s 





















.^-^^^ V 



^* no 



^^-n^. 










\^<^' 
3^v 



■^* ^v '-^ o;k/^^\f/ <i,- V ^^^^B^,* -^^ 












0"°, '^o 



0° .\^i;i' % 







'MfW; ^'>*^>.. -;•— -.xv^-^^. »^^.- .^'^v '.^t^ 






.0 






o » « . \% 



^9^ 




i, "4¥^ 1989 







^^-^^^ 



